The Curmudgeaon Admits Its Position is Not Science-

-
Yes indeed, the self-proclaimed "Sensuous Curmudgeon" has admitted its position is NOT science:

In science, the evidence is all that matters, ...

Unfortunately its position doesn't have any suporting evidence. No one can test the premise that prokaryotes can "evolve" into something other than prokaryotes via necessity and chance.

As a matter of fact not one of its position's major claims can be tested- it is all circumstantial evidence which means you have to assume the very thing you are supposed to be testing.

If you read TSC's blog you will see that it is a clueless evoTARD- heck it bought the story of red dwarfs having habitable planets- how stupid can one be?

Habitable Planets Orbiting Red Dwarfs? Unlikely...

-
Many billions of rocky planets in the habitable zones around red dwarfs in the Milky Way:

"Our new observations with HARPS mean that about 40% of all red dwarf stars have a super-Earth orbiting in the habitable zone where liquid water can exist on the surface of the planet," says Xavier Bonfils (IPAG, Observatoire des Sciences de l'Univers de Grenoble, France), the leader of the team. "Because red dwarfs are so common — there are about 160 billion of them in the Milky Way — this leads us to the astonishing result that there are tens of billions of these planets in our galaxy alone."

However the circumstellar habitable zone of a red dwarf is much closer to the host star than our system. And with that you would have a planet in which the rotation = revoltion (as with our Moon). That means one side will always face the star and the other will remain dark. The side facing the star will be too hot and the dark side will be too cold.

So if scientists want to find habitable planets they need to forget about red dwarfs as a host star.

Coppedge vs JPL- Too Boring for Reporters

-
As there has been no news coming out of Los Angeles pertaining to Coppedge vs JPL I can only assume my prediction has come true- this is a very boring trial. I have been in a few trials and I can attest to their boring nature.

You want to go to sleep? Watch Court TV. Real Court is not like Judge Judy- it looks like we will just have to wait until this one is over before we hear anything.

Joe Felsenstein- Proud to be Willfully Ignorant

-
Yes it is true, Joe Felsenstein is a willfully ignorant evoTARD. But that really isn't saying much.

Joe Felsenstein spewing his ignorance- again:

This is just Joe G making his claim that Dembski’s CSI argument is only supposed to be applied to the Origin OI Life. He and I have been back and forth on this. Not only has he failed to convince me, he has failed to convince any of the other people here who have read Dembski, including any of the other ID proponents here. He is all alone in that.

Unfortunately for the willfully ignorant punk the book "No Free Lunch" supports my claim- see "No Free Lunch"- Complex Specified Information Pertains to Origins


The glossary on Uncommon Descent supports my claim:

CSI – Life shows evidence of complex, aperiodic, and specified information in its key functional macromolecules, and the only other example we know of such function-specifying complex information are artifacts designed by intelligent agents. A chance origin of life would exceed the universal probability bound (UPB) set by the scope of the universe; hence design is a factor in the origin and development of life. Contrary to a commonly encountered (and usually dismissive) opinion, this concept is neither original to Dr Dembski nor to the design theory movement. Its first recognized use was by noted Origin of Life researcher, Leslie Orgel, in 1973:

Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Emphases added.]

The concept of complex specified information helps us understand the difference between (a) the highly informational, highly contingent aperiodic functional macromolecules of life and (b) regular crystals formed through forces of mechanical necessity, or (c) random polymer strings. In so doing, they identified a very familiar concept — at least to those of us with hardware or software engineering design and development or troubleshooting experience and knowledge. Furthermore, on massive experience, such CSI reliably points to intelligent design when we see it in cases where we independently know the origin story.

the book "Signature in the Cell" also supports my claim.

The following article from Dembski supports my claim:

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information

IOW Joe Felsenstein is just a pathetically ignorant piece-of-shit evoTARD.

Tennessee Passes Academic Freedom Bill- evoTARDs are Worried

-
Nothing like the words "academic freedom" to frighten the evoTARD ilk- "Scopes in reverse" is the evoTARD call to duty. Can't have students questioning materialism. Ya see once questioned the illusion of being scientific disappears.

evoTARDs love to say that the design is illusory. However it is obvious that their "science" is illusory.

Now all we need is more States to follow suit and soon enough the "theory" of evolution will be exposed as the nonsense it is on a country-wide basis.

Evolution = "blind and undirected" processes

-
According to evolutionary biologists natural selection and genetic drift are bliund, mindless processes. And the mutations that feed them are totally undirected, ie left to chance.

38 Nobel Laureates say:

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Natural selection is said to be blind and mindless. Just what direction is a blind, mindless, unguided and unplanned process going to produce?

"Evolution is a Blind, Purposeless Process"

-
And even more support for my claims-

That evolution is a blind, purposeless process is difficult to grasp, yet it is a fundamental part of understanding biology.

Life is good....

Stop the Press!!!! Coppedge Sold DVDs after Work!

-
Oh no- the JPL lawyers broke the case wide open by exposing Coppedge as an after work DVD seller! Unfortunately they never made any connection between that activity and his work performance nor his interactions with other JPL employees.

But one JPL lawyer did make a statement, but that is not testimony nor evidence- the lawyer said something about Coppedge not listening to his supervisors:

"Everything that Mr. Chin said to you about customers' viewpoints, you would dismiss and say `you don't understand me," Zapp said.

Objection, your Honor- counsel is answering for the witness.

With so little being printed about this case it is a sure bet this trial is one very, very boring affair- transcripts sure to cure insomnia.

EvoTARDs on Coppedge- Trial via Trial Briefs!

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless they seem to think that trial-briefs are actual evidence. Unfortunately they are not. And unfortunately for evoTARDs the judge has read the same trial briefs as we get to read.

And guess what? The judge ruled there is a reason to have a trial-> meaning if the JPL's trial briefs had any merit the case would have been dismissed and there wouldn't be a trial.

But the evoTARDs do have one thing right- this trial doesn't have anything to do with Intelligent design per se. It does have everything to do with a person's right to politely defend his/ her position in the face of adversity.

Chia (Pet) Seeds, for Your Health!

-
Yes, you read that correctly- chia seeds are a health-food! Salvia hispanica is full of omega-3s, contains plenty of fiber and also has calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium- all minerals your body needs.

I grind mine in a coffee grinder and add them to my pancake mix or oatmeal

the magic of the chia seed

This "just" in- "Water Melts"

-
Yup, you read that right. I just read a post to me from a person that I usually ignore- his name is Mike Elzinga, and he is your normal clueless evoTARD. But anyway, take a look at what he said:

In case you think of melting temperatures as thousands of degrees, note that water melts at 0 Celsius; and most living organisms are made up of soft matter in the temperature range of liquid water. What happens to soft matter if you cool it sufficiently?

Has anyone ever seen water melting? Yes, ICE melts- SNOW melts- but water is already a liquid...

Coppedge vs JPL- Trial Underway

-
Well the opening statements have been made- message to evoTARDs-> opening statements are NOT evidence. They are NOT testimony. That means all the shit that the JPL lawyers spewed about Coppedge will either have to be substantiated or they will eat it, big time.

But anyway Coppedge has been testisfying and complaining of headaches.

It will be interesting to see if the defense has anything in the way of evidence or will this just be a "she said/ he said"...

"No Free Lunch"- Complex Specified Information Pertains to Origins

-
Elizabeth Liddle and Joe Felsenstein are quite the TARDs (include MathGrrl) by trying to tell me that it is my personal opinion that complex specified information (CSI) pertains to origins.

Well then, to support my alleged "personal opinion" I give you William Dembski from his book "No Free Lunch"- the book that first discusses CSI:

No Free lunch pages 148-49

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems. Darwinist Richard Dawkins cashes out biological specification in terms of the reproduction of genes. Thus, in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins writes, “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality is specified in advance is…the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.”

The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of information but the origin of complex specified information. Paul Davies emphasized this point in his recent book The Fifth Miracle where he summarizes the current state of origin-of-life research: “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.” The problem of specified complexity has dogged origin-of-life research now for decades. Leslie Orgel recognized the problem in the early 1970s: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”

Where, then, does complex specified information or CSI come from, and where is it incapable of coming from? According to Manfred Eigen, CSI comes from algorithms and natural laws. As he puts it, “Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of [complex specified] information.” The only question for Eigen is which algorithms and natural laws explain the origin of CSI. The logically prior question of whether algorithms and natural laws are even in principle capable of explaining the origin of CSI is one he ignores. And yet it is this very question that undermines the entire project of naturalistic origins-of-life research. Algorithms and natural laws are in principle incapable of explaining the origin of CSI. To be sure, algorithms and natural laws can explain the flow of CSI. Indeed, algorithms and natural laws are ideally suited for transmitting already existing CSI. As we shall see next, what they cannot do is explain its origin. (bold added)

The very next section, section 3.8 is titled "The Origin of Complex Specified Information"

That is quite the "personal opinion" I have formulated. I have no idea how I could have even reached it. ;)

And evoTARDs wonder why no one but the evoTARD faithful, take them seriously.

Elizabeth Liddle- Choking on CSI and Natural Selection

-
Elizabeth Liddle has developed into quite the evoTARD.

She has a post on her septic tank blog that is titled Creating CSI with NS

Unfortunately her post has nothing to do with CSI nor natural selection.

Coin toss results do not reproduce. Elizabeth Liddle is a clueless TARD.

Joe Felsenstein- Quote- Mines Dembski and Throws a Fit When Exposed

-
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=562&cpage=1#comment-7678

Joe Felsenstein quote-mined Dembski to try to show that CSI pertains to fitness- that part in bold is the part that Joe F mined:
No Free lunch pages 148-49

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems. Darwinist Richard Dawkins cashes out biological specification in terms of the reproduction of genes. Thus, in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins writes, “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality is specified in advance is…the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.”

The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of information but the origin of complex specified information. Paul Davies emphasized this point in his recent book The Fifth Miracle where he summarizes the current state of origin-of-life research: “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.” The problem of specified complexity has dogged origin-of-life research now for decades. Leslie Orgel recognized the problem in the early 1970s: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”

The point being is that Joe F needs to explain those reproducers but he appears to be too stupid to grasp that bit...

Elizabeth Liddle- Choking on Logic

-
Over on Lizzies blog I had said:

The whole point behind CSI is right now every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause, it has always been via some agency- always, 100%- almost law-like

So when we observe CSI and didn't directly observe it we infer some agency was involved.

And to refute that inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate blind and undirected processes can produce CSI starting with no SI at all.

Lizzie responds by saying I directly contradicted myself and that what I said was akin to:

All cats have four legs
This animal has four legs
This animal is a cat.

Who the fuck, in their right mind, couild even make such a connection?

So I responded with:

What I said would be more like-

All quadrupeds have four legs

This cat has four legs

This cat is a quadruped
--

And as always there is oleg in the background praying that my comments will not get through so that his nonsense and ignorance are not challenged.

But anyway if I were a clueless evoTARD that wanted to post a bunch of misrepresentations about Intelligent Design, I would also heavily moderate someone like myself.

Elizabeth Liddle, Joe Felsenstein, and other evotards, Still Misrepresenting CSI

-
I tried and tried to tell them that CSI pertains to origins, but their heads are so far up their asses that they cannot understand.

I posted the following quote from "No Free Lunch" but as with several other of my correcting posts, it most likely won't be posted:

The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of information but the origin of complex specified information.- page 149- the sentence starting the very next paragraph after what Joe F quoted.

Just read the stupidity- oleg thinks evolution actually selects- Elizabeth thinks that because GAs can produce SC/ CSI that means blind and undirected processes can- what is wrong with her? Someone designs something to solve a problem, it solves the problem and design had nothing to do with it?

As for Joe Felsenstein, he still refuses to understand that CSI pertains to origins and thinks if he quote-mines "No Free Lunch" he can make his case.

The funny part is each of them are proud of their ignorance...

Tiktaalik- Shubin Still Hasn't Found What He was Looking For

-
First, the set-up:

"In a nutshell, the 'fish–tetrapod transition' usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land. This event took place between about 385 and 360 million years ago toward the end of the period of time known as the Devonian. The Devonian is often referred to as the 'Age of Fishes,' as fish form the bulk of the vertebrate fossil record for this time."- Jennifer Clack, The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations; "Evolution: Education and Outreach", 2009, Volume 2, Number 2, Pages 213-223

Got that- "the transition" refers to an event, a specific event that occurred between two specified time periods, a time when there were fish and no tetrapods and the time when there were fish and tetrapods. (as I said Here and again here- just can't get enough of RichTard's cowardice and ignorance)

With that now firmly established we return to "Your Inner Fish" chapter 1 where Shubin discusses what he was looking for- hint: evidence for the transition, ie the event:

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10 (bold and italics added)

OK he did it just exactly as described, bracketed the dates. However his dates were wrong, which means he did not find evidence for the transition, which occurred many millions of years earlier.

In order to find what he was looking for, evidence of the transition, he needed to focus on rocks 400 million years old, as the new data puts terapods in existence about 395 million years ago.

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

Why Natural Selection Can NOT Put Functional Information Into the Genome

-
This is in response to the tripe posted on The Septic Zone- Natural selection can put Functional Information into the genome-

First, natural selection is a result and becomes no more than a statistical artifact. Secondly biological fitness pertains to reproductive success which is an after-the-fact assessment. Third there is behaviour, something that can be changed much quicker to aid survival and adds nothing to the genome.

Joe F sez:

The essence of the notion of Functional Information, or Specified Information, is that it measures how far out on some scale the genotypes have gone.

Unfortunately Joe F never provides a reference for that bit of tripe. I have never read any IDist say anything like that. Methinks Joe F made it up

The relevant measure is fitness.

Umm biological fitness is nonsense Joe F- it is an after-the-fact assessment.

But anyway as I explained to Joe F CSI pertains to origins. Unfortunately Joe F refused to grasp that fact.

Also natural selection has never been observed to do anything. So that would be another problem.

Evidence for Real Genetic Algorithms

-
First, by real genetic algorithms I mean the programming in living organisms that, for the most part, controls mutations.

The evidence for the RGAs is RSF: Good Mutations Occurring On Demand

see also-

Front-Loaded Evolution via Genetic/ Evolutionary Algorithms- What gets Front-Loaded"

and

Genetic/ Evolutionary Algorithms and My Front-Loaded Evolution

Coppedge vs JPL- Trial Continued

-

Superior Court of California

enter case #

BC435600

Updated: Civil Trial of Former JPL Worker Bumped to Thursday

Is the following an increase in uncertainty or a reduction of uncertainty?

Updated: Civil Trial of Former JPL Worker Bumped to Friday

It looks like there needs to be a trial to decide what the trial will be about.

Opening Statements in Intelligent Design Case Slated for Monday

The Origin of Life, Why the "Theory" of Evolution Fails

-
The "theory" of evolution allegedly has nothing to do with the origin of life- it starts with living organisms already in place. But that is why it fails as how life originated directly impacts any subsequent theory of evolution.

If living organisms were designed then the inference would be they were designed to evove/ evolved by design.

As Dawkins and others have said if living organisms were designed then we are looking at a totally different kind of biology.

Cars are designed and no one thinks they do their car-thing via random gear movements.

IOW the OoL and its evolution are directly coupled, and forcefully separating them is totally unscientific and exposes personal biases as well as ignorance.

Thorton- Lying About Non-Random Selection, Again

-
Look evoTARDS, natural selection is a) a misnomer as nothing is being selected and b) just a badly named result- and according to Mayr, whatever is "good-enough" is the result. And according to reality that can be any number of variations that any population contains.

Even Dawkins says it is blind, although he also calls it non-random. It is also supposed to be mindless- blind and mindless, but allegedly non-random.

I wonder if there are any analogies- ID calls on engineering as an analogy, but there aren't any blind and mindless engineers and there aren't any blind and mindless watchmakers.

thorton claiming non-random selection

thorton's TARD FAIL response:

"non-random" in this case means not having a uniform probability distribution. That leads to differential reproductive success among the variations, one of the key aspects to the evolutionary process.

EXACTLY- natural selection is total bullshit. Thanks Thorton.

Confusion Over the Second Law of Thermodynamics

-
There is still a MAJOR, MAJOR point that is being overlooked by evotards wrt the second law of thermodynamics:

Would we even have tornadoes in a blind watchmaker scenario? Would we have the earth? Would we have gravity, the strong & weak nuclear forces and electro-mag?

Again the argument pertains to naturalism- you have to explain the universe using the blind watchmaker wrt 2nd law.

But anyway if one demonstrates that a living organism can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes- matter and energy, necessity and chance- our claims will be refuted and yours will finally be supported.

Richard Tard Hughes, Too Much of a Coward to Support His Claims

-
Yes once again RichTARD Hughes proves he is a coward- this time by lying about Neil Shubin.

Shubin said:

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10

And that can only mean that the data points represent the time when there were fish, and no tetrapods-> 385 mya and a time when there were fish and tetrapods-> 365 mya.

RichTARD Hughes chimed in and said I was wrong and instead of producing any evidence that I am wrong he just kept referencing his own TARD saying I am wrong.

So when I called him on it little Ms Liddle closed the thread to save him from embarrassment.

What about RichTARD you pathetic little coward- dare to try to support your claims?

My prediction is you won't....

RichTARD Hughes Refues to Man-Up, Chokes on Tiktaalik

-
Here is the challenge (again) read the following passgae from "Your Inner Fish" and my paraphrasing of what it says. If you agree with me please say so and if you disagree then please make your case:

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10

OK man-up, if you dare- In my words- they represent the time when there were fish, and no tetrapods-> 385 mya and a time when there were fish and tetrapods-> 365 mya.

Is there anyone who thinks differently? Please make your case.
--------

RichTARD totally avoided the challenge and referenced himself to support his claims, again.

Interesting Development

-

The whole truth on March 5, 2012 at 3:15 pm said:




Joe G: Why does your mother miss me?

So, instead of backing up your implied threats, you bring my mother into it and make insulting remarks about her, and it's not the first time you've done so. I'm only going to tell you once joe: If you ever mention my mother again I'll come there and rip your deranged head off of your neck and stuff it down your throat, and unlike you I'm not bluffing.

So I responded to that with:

"So your mother doesn't miss me

I'll be waiting"

I also asked if the TWiT even knew who its mother was.

OMG! What have I done?

Quick Quiz- courtesy of RichTARD Hughes

-
Quick quiz -
which of these creates creates the most guano per bodyweight per day?

1) Bat
2) Penguin
3) Gallien
4) Seal
5) RichTARD and his fellow evoTARDs


Given an impartial judge & jury I know I could make a great case for #5.

evoTARD response- "oh but joe you have the most posts in Elizabeth's subjective guano thread"-

And I say- exactly and all any impartial person has to do is read the guano I was responding to.

First thing to do is ask who is expressing a new idea and who is attacking that idea with nothing but obvioulsy ignorant spewage?

Once you figure that out, combo number 5 is the only option.

Oleg Tchernyshyov- Ignorant of GAs

-
Thank you olegt- thank you for proving beyond any doubt that you are totally ignorant of GAs.

First he tells me that GAs have to be outside of the organisms because that is how it is in a VIRTUAL world. However when reminded that it is a VIRTUAL world and they can do that in a VIRTUAL world, but not in the real world, where the GA to control the inside of an organism would have to be inside of the organism.

It took a whole for that to sink in, if it ever did.

So what does dumbass olegt do next? Say the obvious- that the mutations in a GA are randomly produced- so what oleg- they are produced in response to the GA to help the GA solve the problem it was designed to solve.

IOW olegt, there is more to any given GA besides the ability to generate random mutations.

GAs direct those mutations via cumulative selection in order to reach the goal- ie solve the problem.

GAs = goal oriented and goal oriented = ID.

IOW if a GA solves the problem it was designed to solve, then it solved it by design, not willy-nilly.

Unfortunately evotards seem to be ignorant of that...

RichTARD Hughes, the "Al Gore" of "BWAAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAA"

-
The wonders of evotard never cease to amaze me.

First RichTARD thinks he can refute what I say about GAs without ever addressing what I say. Not only that it is clear he doesn't understand GAs- but I digress.

Now RichTARD is flattered that I am copying him- something quite unintentional as it was the appropriate response given the drool I was responding to- by posting a couple lines of "BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAHAHAAAA" with a breath pause in between.

RichTard Hughes- the queen of ignorance thinks HE invented "BWAAAAAHAAAHA"

To that I say:


BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAAA

evotards for egomaniacs...